I really didnt care about the name until I heard the AM show on 710 this morning they explained a few things about the history of the name.

Doing this from memory but it was basically that the owner back then changed the name from the Braves to the redskins, it was thought he did so because the second coach had a Native American background and he did it as a insult to said coach. The owner also died in the late sixties and left most of his money to a foundation with the stipulation that the foundation couldn't do any work that helped overcome segregation and any work or money that would help or aid any native Americans or African Americans in any way.

I was pretty blown away at just how racist the owner was, after hearing that I would fully support a name change just to make that former owner roll over in his grave (even more so if they went with the red tails).

Times change. I think that nowadays the name is mildly racist, but I'm not sure history should have to be changed to suit current political climate changes. Textbooks still refer to Indians instead of Native Americans in plenty of instances.

RolandDeschain wrote:Times change. I think that nowadays the name is mildly racist, but I'm not sure history should have to be changed to suit current political climate changes. Textbooks still refer to Indians instead of Native Americans in plenty of instances.

You realize there's a difference between you being called a "whiteskin" and redskin, right? The name or word is completely associated with horrible racism and horrible acts.

Would you really make the same argument - saying "wigger" doesn't bother me at all" ? I doubt it. It's a horrible word (they both are) and it's an embarrassment that ANYONE would still cling to it over money, some false sense of football history (for god's sake) over ACTUAL history. Daniel Snyder is a clueless moron. The fact that Goodell backs him, and the name is the most shocking of all. I'm not surprised that he's not going against Snyder on this, but he could have easily kept quite - But no - He had to release an incredibly ignorant statement. I honestly can't believe that this story isn't getting more traction.

RolandDeschain wrote:Times change. I think that nowadays the name is mildly racist, but I'm not sure history should have to be changed to suit current political climate changes. Textbooks still refer to Indians instead of Native Americans in plenty of instances.

I think the name should change...in fact after recently reading some books on the indian wars/trail of tears I'm uncomfortable using Native Americans as mascots for any team in any sport. I think making them mascots whitewashes history and dehumanizes them to a certain extent. Our ancestors did perform genocide on these people and it's pretty disrespectful to that history to trivialize it by making them sports mascots.

Here's my problem with the "history" argument- It's basically just rewarding being so stubborn, out of touch, and arrogant to hold strong to a racist nickname or a racist logo or whatever for far too long. Just because you've done something wrong a long time, doesn't mean the onus is on others to just accept it.

Here's my problem with the "Native American's are fine with it" argument - I don't believe racial slurs, racist jokes, hate speech, etc. are wrong just because they offend those they are directed at. If I had a kid and he pointed out an African-American and said "look dad a n-----," I wouldn't feel like it was okay so long as no African-Americans heard it. Crap like the Redskins or Chief Wahoo offend my sense of decency, and I'm not any part Native American. Same way I feel when I see old racist caricatures, literature, etc. There's a reason we try to bury so much of it in the past, because it hurts to look at now, and that's how a lot of people feel about these teams.

The change is inevitable, it WILL happen, people are not going to grow more accepting of ugly racist relics on grand display over time.

Stephen SeaHawking wrote:I don't know, but if you find yourself agreeing with BOTH Dan Snyder and Roger Goodell on a topic, you are probably wrong.

Being from Seattle, surrounded by a lot of Native Americans on a semi-daily basis, I would be embarrassed to have anything with "Redskins" printed on it. What do you think?

I am part American Indian (which I prefer) but I did hear of a poll taken - 100% American Indians.

Over 90% thought the name "Redskins" was not offensive and they were just fine with it. As am I.

Keep the Redskins name!!!!!!!!

Kind of funny that most white people don't like the name and most American Indians appear to be just fine with it.

Did they actually question 100% of the Native Americans, with all sorts of blood lines, in this country or was it some stupid online poll that a bunch of Redskin fans were able to pump up their support for?

I'm part Native American as well, and it is all out racist. Just because some people are fine with something, doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

----------------------------"Plus I hate the seattle stadium the **** place is too loud, gave me a headache watchin the game." ~ Some 9er fan

RolandDeschain wrote:Times change. I think that nowadays the name is mildly racist, but I'm not sure history should have to be changed to suit current political climate changes. Textbooks still refer to Indians instead of Native Americans in plenty of instances.

RolandDeschain wrote:Times change. I think that nowadays the name is mildly racist, but I'm not sure history should have to be changed to suit current political climate changes. Textbooks still refer to Indians instead of Native Americans in plenty of instances.

AbsolutNET wrote:So you have no problem calling an Indian American a "redskin" to their face?

An Indian-American's heritage is India, but I presume you meant Native American. As a joke I would, yes. Hell, me and a bunch of friends call an Israeli friend of ours a Jew all the time for the hell of it. (He's atheist.) It's actually a friendly moniker in the context we use it. Would I use it as a racial epithet in anger at a Native American person? Almost certainly not, short of extraordinary circumstances where I have valid reason to goad the person excessively based on something they did.

Spounge84 wrote:Roland, despite what you seem to think the word Jew it's not a racial epithet.

Well, a significant percentage of racial epithets are actually ethnic epithets, and Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity or a race; but people use it like one and it has probably entered the English language as such in dictionaries by now.

pinksheets wrote:Here's my problem with the "history" argument- It's basically just rewarding being so stubborn, out of touch, and arrogant to hold strong to a racist nickname or a racist logo or whatever for far too long. Just because you've done something wrong a long time, doesn't mean the onus is on others to just accept it.

Here's my problem with the "Native American's are fine with it" argument - I don't believe racial slurs, racist jokes, hate speech, etc. are wrong just because they offend those they are directed at. If I had a kid and he pointed out an African-American and said "look dad a n-----," I wouldn't feel like it was okay so long as no African-Americans heard it. Crap like the Redskins or Chief Wahoo offend my sense of decency, and I'm not any part Native American. Same way I feel when I see old racist caricatures, literature, etc. There's a reason we try to bury so much of it in the past, because it hurts to look at now, and that's how a lot of people feel about these teams.

The change is inevitable, it WILL happen, people are not going to grow more accepting of ugly racist relics on grand display over time.

I'm QFTing this post because it's just about perfect and is worth being re-read. Well put.

Who cares. It's a name. Names and labels are meaningless to anyone who actually has a brain.

If the Redskins change their name, do you guys really think that Indians (and yes I call them Indians because that's what they prefer to be called) are going to let out a big sigh of relief and say "well...our lives just got better". I don't think so...it's just meaningless garbage for the media to churn out and make money.

You guys can argue this til the cows come home but the bottom line is that it's not going to change as long as Snyder's bitch boy is the commish. Yo Rog, how's that "we're all about player safety" thing workin' out in conjunction with Danny boy's cow pasture of a field? RGIII and Chris Clemons think it's not going so well. Not being a hypocrite much are you?

fenderbender123 wrote:Who cares. It's a name. Names and labels are meaningless to anyone who actually has a brain.

If the Redskins change their name, do you guys really think that Indians (and yes I call them Indians because that's what they prefer to be called) are going to let out a big sigh of relief and say "well...our lives just got better". I don't think so...it's just meaningless garbage for the media to churn out and make money.

Names and labels tell us about our culture - what we value, what we don't, our attitudes, our assumptions, our relationships to one another. There's a reason why republicans call it "enhanced interrogation techniques" and why democrats call it "torture" -- or why republicans call rich people "job creators" and democrats refer to them as "the one percent." Names don't just DESCRIBE a thing, they SHAPE what that thing is.

There is a whole field of study called Semiotics that addresses this. To live in obliviousness to the rhetorical power of language is to make yourself susceptible to anyone who chooses to wield it to their advantage.

Stephen SeaHawking wrote:Names and labels tell us about our culture - what we value, what we don't, our attitudes, our assumptions, our relationships to one another. There's a reason why republicans call it "enhanced interrogation techniques" and why democrats call it "torture" -- or why republicans call rich people "job creators" and democrats refer to them as "the one percent." Names don't just DESCRIBE a thing, they SHAPE what that thing is.

There is a whole field of study called Semiotics that addresses this. To live in obliviousness to the rhetorical power of language is to make yourself susceptible to anyone who chooses to wield it to their advantage.

I agree. And the very people who are living in obliviousness to the rhetorical power of language are the exact type of people who think it matters what the name of a football team is. We should condition them into realizing how little value labels and names have so that they are no longer susceptible. We can start by not catering to their needs that are drawn off of these values, such as re-naming the Redskins.

Stephen SeaHawking wrote:Names and labels tell us about our culture - what we value, what we don't, our attitudes, our assumptions, our relationships to one another. There's a reason why republicans call it "enhanced interrogation techniques" and why democrats call it "torture" -- or why republicans call rich people "job creators" and democrats refer to them as "the one percent." Names don't just DESCRIBE a thing, they SHAPE what that thing is.

There is a whole field of study called Semiotics that addresses this. To live in obliviousness to the rhetorical power of language is to make yourself susceptible to anyone who chooses to wield it to their advantage.

I agree. And the very people who are living in obliviousness to the rhetorical power of language are the exact type of people who think it matters what the name of a football team is. We should condition them into realizing how little value labels and names have so that they are no longer susceptible. We can start by not catering to their needs that are drawn off of these values, such as re-naming the Redskins.

I think America and its crack down on racial slurs I a joke and over the top. I agree with fenderbender nfl teams should be able to be called what ever they want. Whats wrong with the Alabama porch monkey's. The Arizona mud backs sounds good to me as well. Why it ok in your mind to use a racial slur towards one group and not others. Is because YOU have been programed to think as such. Whats next in your opinion the Detriot women ra#er's (not going to say the word). A large group of people find the racial slur offensive and its just as bad as the ones listed above.

AbsolutNET wrote:So you have no problem calling an Indian American a "redskin" to their face?

An Indian-American's heritage is India, but I presume you meant Native American. As a joke I would, yes. Hell, me and a bunch of friends call an Israeli friend of ours a Jew all the time for the hell of it. (He's atheist.) It's actually a friendly moniker in the context we use it. Would I use it as a racial epithet in anger at a Native American person? Almost certainly not, short of extraordinary circumstances where I have valid reason to goad the person excessively based on something they did.

Its not a good idea to refer to people as jew, redskin, , even amongst friends. I had friends like that who would use derogatory terms at me. I acted like it was a friendly moniker as well but it was not. I laughed it off just to fit in but I couldn't help but think they thought less of me or they did not accept me because of it.

Obviously, i know you from the 49ers forum and u are NOT prejudice and you are NOT racist, but i'm saying using terms like that may make people feel uncomfortable. Redskins and other names like that are derogatory. Imagine if the German soccer team in 2100 was the German K*kes. Those people in 2100 may not even know what that means, but doesn't make it ok.

cockeyhawk wrote:I think America and its crack down on racial slurs I a joke and over the top. I agree with fenderbender nfl teams should be able to be called what ever they want. Whats wrong with the Alabama porch monkey's. The Arizona mud backs sounds good to me as well. Why it ok in your mind to use a racial slur towards one group and not others. Is because YOU have been programed to think as such. Whats next in your opinion the Detriot women ra#er's (not going to say the word). A large group of people find the racial slur offensive and its just as bad as the ones listed above.

Names and labels are not racist or offensive by nature. They are not the enemy. If we ended actual racism, nobody would care what the names of our teams are. That's my only point. Pick up a philosophy book sometime and find out for yourself.

It's like schools trying to take a stance against gangs by banning Raiders apparel and boys wearing pink shirts. They're just clothes...clothes don't jump out and stab you in the face.

If you wanna spend your time on window dressing instead of actually cracking down on the cause and damage of racism, be my guest.

Young2Rice wrote:Its not a good idea to refer to people as jew, redskin, even amongst friends. I had friends like that who would use derogatory terms at me. I acted like it was a friendly moniker as well but it was not. I laughed it off just to fit in but I couldn't help but think they thought less of me or they did not accept me because of it.

I know what you mean, and I'm sure there are plenty of instances of that; but not with the 3 friends I'm referring to. They regularly make racist jokes about themselves to get laughs, too. My Korean friend has threatened to eat my Israeli friend's dog more times than I can count, lol. He has even asked for a salt shaker randomly out of the blue, and when my Israeli friend asked why, he said "So I can start preparing Niko." (Niko being the name of his dog.)

We don't say this stuff aloud where other people can hear it, though; so if you think we'll say stuff like that loudly in a grocery store or while waiting in line at a movie theater, ah, no.

Young2Rice wrote:Its not a good idea to refer to people as jew, redskin, even amongst friends. I had friends like that who would use derogatory terms at me. I acted like it was a friendly moniker as well but it was not. I laughed it off just to fit in but I couldn't help but think they thought less of me or they did not accept me because of it.

We don't say this stuff aloud where other people can hear it, though; so if you think we'll say stuff like that loudly in a grocery store or while waiting in line at a movie theater, ah, no.

But it's ok to name a professional team with one of those words? Got it.

I'm just glad I hate the Redskins (the team, I'm definitely not using a racial epithet to declare my hate for a section of people) and don't have to veil support for an ignorant name just because that team is in my market.

12evanf wrote:I'm just glad I hate the Redskins (the team, I'm definitely not using a racial epithet to declare my hate for a section of people) and don't have to veil support for an ignorant name just because that team is in my market.

Yeah, God forbid you have the intelligence to still support a team but dislike the name of it, lol. What a horrible dilemma that would be!

I suppose they could be renamed the Braves or something? But fact is the vast majority of Native Americans aren't offended by it and don't see it as an issue. It's really just being spotlighted as a way to push more political correctness agendas to the forefront more than anything else.